03/01/2010

God told him to vote against us, huh? Oh, well that's fair. After all, it's not like he's using a justification that's completely outside the realm of the should-be civil marriage discussion, or that he's using a supposed personal commandment that is wholly impossible to argue against. And it's not liking he's overlooking the fact -- the FACT! -- that no gay activist is seeking to force any church to marry anyone, or the fact -- THE FACT! -- that religious ceremony is already an optional component of marriage.

Oh wait a minute: Yes, he totally is overlooking all of this! And he, an elected lawmaker, is saying that his personal faith views on this one subject should define CIVIL policy for an entire state!

It's beyond unreal that we're still having to have this conversation in 2010. But as long as we live in a nation where people can claim a personal conversation with God as a common and acceptable bullet point in their legislative powerpoint presentations, then we who traffic in the literal legal landscape are going to keep *facepalm*ing our way through this should-be, could-be closed CIVIL case. As long as folks like Rep. Cheatman can use their sources of personal calm for the cause of causing us personal disruption, we will never be free.

Your thoughts

"[Albert] Ellis contends that he has made it clear that devout religiosity, rather than religion in its usual definition, tends to be emotionally harmful." Ellis, Albert, American Psychologist. Vol 47(3), Mar 1992, 428-429.

Ellis is no longer with us, but his contributions have helped to eliminate religion's stranglehold on what they falsely call "morality" especially with regard to sexuality. I think that the APA should go further, and classify "devout religiosity" (zealotry) as a psychological disorder. Then, maybe, we can finally get some help for these whack-jobs (technical term for loonies).